Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I think we need to be careful in confusing "standing up" with "aggression" with "ego". None of these terms are really even synonymous with each other. After all, what is "letting someone else handle a problem," simply a passive action to continue to engage the issue, but allow someone else to intervene? It's not that we're gonna ignore a litterer; rather, we just trust [hope] that the police catch her. So instead of saying, "Hey man, there's a trash can over there. Can you help us keep the park clean? If you are determined to litter, give me your trash and I'll throw it away." We instead watch and hope they get caught. Maybe a fine... Oh, and court appearance with a punishment; like 40 community hours. And a news paper article shaming the offender.

Teddy Roosevelt talked about carrying a big stick. Finding someone with a bigger stick to fight for you is sometimes the right thing to do. But your still supporting the fight, you're just not doing the fighting.

Indeed. This is why we pay for police departments and court systems. It is also why vigilantism is frowned upon, and why the laws concerning self-defense are written the way they are.

As near as I've been able to track this reference down (and I admit, I haven't tried all that hard), the relationship that O Sensei perceived was that both nourish both body and spirit.

Unfortunately, there is increasingly more evidence that many "O Sensei Quotes" are actually poorly translated, or excised from larger lectures and taken out of context, and some maybe even fabricated. I like the idea that you bring forth. It's a beautiful image. I claim no certainty that Morihei Ueshiba actually said exactly this quote, nor do I know what he actually meant. Agriculture in his day also probably didn't mean GMOs, Monsanto corporate vision, etc. I have not heard of O Sensei driving a tractor or milking a cow; maybe it happened. Yes, I have taken my own understanding and I may be way off base.

My memories of living in a small agricultural town was that the farm kids worked hard and were self reliant. There was no delegating what was necessary, no waiting for someone else to step up and do what needed to be done, no leaving the dirty work for someone else. (Tie back to the OP).

I remember having a very romantic version of living on a farm surrounded by animals and being horrified to learn a friend shot his dog because the animal was blind and old - no going to the vet. Animals as products and nature manipulated towards a goal. Fleecing, docking, branding, gelding, milking, breeding. Nature harnessed, not merely witnessed.

I guess my image of agriculture is also affected by Sunday School - the shepards with their slings and staves protecting and guiding their flock.

TSomeone wants to have racist posters on their front lawn, or the KKK which is trying to have a public revival with the Confederate flag debate decides to burn a cross, there is a time to stand up.

The guy with the racist posters has the same free speech rights as the people whose opinions you find more congenial. So does the KKK. (Cross burning can actually be illegal under some circumstances, however.)

O Sensei allegedly said Budo and Farming are one, or something along that line. Farmers do put up fences, pull weeds, set traps for coyotes and so on. I don't know where to draw the line, but it is healthy for society and ourselves to drawn lines.

If you read through the third part of TIE 27, you will find the references. The quote originally was 兵農一如 hei-nou ichinyo, which could be rendered as 'fighting and farming are one.'

The slogan was part of a Meiji government campaign to settle ex-samurai in Hokkaido and the reason was twofold: to give the ex-samurai a means of livelihood and also to maintain a militia, should this be necessary.

The colonization of Hokkaido was the start of a wider campaign to encourage Japanese emigration to Manchuria and other places. One of the samurai who moved to Hokkaido talked to Morihei Ueshiba and this was one of the reasons why he moved there.

The slogan was used by supporters of agrarianism and agrarian nationalism, including Tachibana Kozaburo, who organized a farming commune in Ibaragi Prefecture and attended meetings in Morihei Ueshia's dojo in the 1930s.

At some point Morihei Ueshiba substituted the character BU 武 for HEI 兵 (both mean fighting or war, but have different connotations) and so it became 武農一如 bu-nou ichinyo.

Some lengthy discussion can be found in Kisshomaru Ueshiba's biography.

Indeed. This is why we pay for police departments and court systems. It is also why vigilantism is frowned upon, and why the laws concerning self-defense are written the way they are.

Katherine

Trust in the legal process is the desire to continue intervention, but delegate someone else to intervene. I brought up littering because it is a good example of a "crime" that can be avoided by social cooperation without the intervention of law enforcement. Ironically, there is quite of bit of social propaganda promoting littering vigilantism.

Vigilantism is frowned upon because it takes resolution out of "the system." The origin of vigilantism was the absence of a system. It is a pejorative now, but it used to have a function. My point was to frame the article between the bookends of intervention by legal process and the absence of intervention.

I think many of the nonsense articles are intended to reside between action [that puts you at-risk] and "vigilantism" (passing judgment and punishment outside of a legal process). I am critical of this position because I think we are often hypocritical in our perspective of social behavior. We'll use vigilante behavior to curb soft drink consumption or stop wearing fur, but we require that a threat to harm is physically carried out before police can intervene.

I think if you are reading these articles as a replacement for legal justice (i.e. "vigilantism"), you are misreading the intent of the article. I think you are better off reading these articles as a method of satisfactorily resolving issues before the escalate to require legal intervention, but without jeopardizing your safety. I think if you equate intervention with vigilantism, you are missing two critical components of vigilante behavior - passing judgment and executing punishment.

The guy with the racist posters has the same free speech rights as the people whose opinions you find more congenial. So does the KKK. (Cross burning can actually be illegal under some circumstances, however.)

I don't believe your statement is accurate as written. First, consider that this is a world-wide forum, and not every country extends the same rights to expression. Second, the right to speak freely is not an absolute in the United States, and there are many circumstances where harassing or threatening speech can indeed be curtailed (by laws and local ordnances.

The guy with the racist posters has the same free speech rights as the people whose opinions you find more congenial. So does the KKK. (Cross burning can actually be illegal under some circumstances, however.)

In any event, I was talking about standing up to serious issues, not necessarily resorting to violence. The counter-protest is a great example of standing up. Interference need not always be violent. Legal interference can effect more change than throwing a punch.

Likewise, credit card fraud and identity theft can cause more damage than a punch.

We have many behaviours that can be substituted for violence. It still starts with someone drawing a line, even if only in their heart and mind.

If you read through the third part of TIE 27, you will find the references. The quote originally was 兵農一如 hei-nou ichinyo, which could be rendered as 'fighting and farming are one.'

The slogan was part of a Meiji government campaign to settle ex-samurai in Hokkaido and the reason was twofold: to give the ex-samurai a means of livelihood and also to maintain a militia, should this be necessary.

The colonization of Hokkaido was the start of a wider campaign to encourage Japanese emigration to Manchuria and other places. One of the samurai who moved to Hokkaido talked to Morihei Ueshiba and this was one of the reasons why he moved there.

The slogan was used by supporters of agrarianism and agrarian nationalism, including Tachibana Kozaburo, who organized a farming commune in Ibaragi Prefecture and attended meetings in Morihei Ueshia's dojo in the 1930s.

At some point Morihei Ueshiba substituted the character BU 武 for HEI 兵 (both mean fighting or war, but have different connotations) and so it became 武農一如 bu-nou ichinyo.

Some lengthy discussion can be found in Kisshomaru Ueshiba's biography.

I don't believe your statement is accurate as written. First, consider that this is a world-wide forum, and not every country extends the same rights to expression. Second, the right to speak freely is not an absolute in the United States, and there are many circumstances where harassing or threatening speech can indeed be curtailed (by laws and local ordnances.

I am not a lawyer, and never claimed to be. But my understanding is that few jurisdictions allow a private citizen to personally "curtail" harassing speech by punching the harasser in the mouth.

The poster I was responding to has an American flag next to his name, so I didn't think it was a reach to assume he was considering the American context.

Vigilantism is frowned upon because it takes resolution out of "the system." The origin of vigilantism was the absence of a system. It is a pejorative now, but it used to have a function. My point was to frame the article between the bookends of intervention by legal process and the absence of intervention.

Fair enough. MacYoung is concerned primarily with physical self-defense. Certainly there are many many social interactions that might be described as "intervention" in another's behavior but do not involve either legal process or physical violence.

Fair enough. MacYoung is concerned primarily with physical self-defense. Certainly there are many many social interactions that might be described as "intervention" in another's behavior but do not involve either legal process or physical violence.

Katherine

Nononsense is concerned with self-defense. But it's also bigger than self-defense, which is a small segment of permissible assault. One of the things that I like about several of the articles is they help identify ways to think of interaction beyond confrontation-orientation. Under these broader perspectives, you are not limited to talking about "self-defense" or physical altercation scenarios.http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com...yactuality.htm
This is a good one that starts to set the stage for realizing that if talking to a stranger sets off a "confrontation" feeling, then there may be larger issues at play... In some sense, it is an exercise in de-sensitizing yourself to view your interaction from a more neutral position.

Right. Like the guy who litters and then, when called on it, just goes *off* into some kind of scary psychopath mode. Complaining about the littering wasn't necessarily bad, but now it's time to back away slowly.